At the previous post I made the following comment:
This means that the transfer ratio is reciprocal to the complexity of the pattern. In order to maximize transfer we must minimize complexity. I doubt that.
The reason that I have doubts is that I don't have proof that it actually works.
It hasn't always been that way. Especially my experience with Troyis once seemed to indicate that it might work. The idea is very elegant and tempting, of course. Learn to do the skills and pattern recognition you need almost every move and do it as fast as possible.
With this idea in mind I have spent 1000 hours or more with the following exercises:
- Low level drills of DLM.
- Exercices of CD Maurice Ashley teaches chess.
- 3 board vision exercises by Fritz.
- Knightmoves by playing Troyis.
- Tons of low level tactics.
Aox is a firm believer of this method. I wish him all the luck. In order to make it work you have to discover a new skill. Or new category of patterns, for all you pattern afficionados out there. Patterns with a high transfer ratio and a high relevance for the outcome of the game/solution of the problem.
I have invented such new category of patterns: the invisible topology of the board. Is it frequent: you need it every position. Is it relevant to the outcome: you will find no tactic where it plays no role.
To be perfectly honest with you: I lack the energy to exercise it without any proof that it actually works. I hope you can understand that.